Abstract
This paper examines micro-processes of institutionalization, using the case of stewardship contracting within the US Forest Service. Our basic premise is that, until a new policy becomes an everyday practice among local actors, it will not become institutionalized at the macro-scale. We find that micro-processes of institutionalization are driven by a mixture of large-scale institutional dynamics and how frontline decision-makers understand and interpret these dynamics, given the local social and ecological context in which they operate. For example, this paper suggests that a new policy may become institutionalized when it is understood to solve problems that old institutions at once create and demand to be solved. Agency actors cannot be conceptualized as untethered from the institutions in which they operate. Yet, within larger institutional dynamics, field personnel make key choices about whether to adopt a new policy, making them important players in the micro-processes of policy institutionalization. The interplay of actors and institutions turns agencies, such as the Forest Service, into complex systems that cannot be understood as artifacts of their own history or as a sum of the decisions of individual actors. This dynamic also implies that macro-level institutional change will be uneven, incomplete, and gradual, mirroring uneven, contingent micro-level processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This law also applies to the Bureau of Land Management.
For an explanation of how the federal budget process works, see Schick 2000 and Tomkin 1998. The Forest Service budget and associated justification can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/.
We heard this repeatedly from our interviewees.
Knutson-Vandenberg (K–V) funds are obtained from timber sale receipts and can be used to pay for a variety of forest protection, improvement, and restoration activities in the timber sale area; to maintain biological diversity there; and to protect and improve other resource values on timber sale areas, including wildlife, soil, watershed, range and recreation values (Forest Service Handbook 6509.11 g, Chapter 70).
References
Abers, R. N., & Keck, M. (2013). Practical authority: Agency and institutional change in Brazilian water politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ackerman, S. (1990). Observations on the transformation of the Forest Service: The effects of the National Environmental Policy Act on US Forest Service decision making. Environmental Law, 20(3), 703–734.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Berk, G., & Galvan, D. (2009). How people experience and change institutions: A field guide to creative syncretism. Theory and Society, 38, 543–580.
Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Carpenter, D. P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cashore, B., & Howlett, M. (2007). Punctuating which equlibrium? Understanding thermostatic policy dynamics in Pacific Northwest forestry. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 532–551.
Cheek, K. A. (1996). Community well-being and Forest Service policy: Re-examining the sustained yield unit. A Thesis submitted to Oregon State University, Forest Resources in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science. Corvallis: Oregon State University.
Deeg, R. (2001). Institutional change and the uses and limits of path dependency: The case of German finance (p. 39). Koln, Germany: Max Planck Institute fur Gesellschaftforschung MPIfG.
DeLeon, P., & DeLeon, L. (2002). What ever happened to policy implementation? An alternative approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 467–492.
Golden, M. M. (2000). What motivates bureaucrats?. New York: Columbia University Press.
Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Government Accountability Office. (2008). Use of stewardship contracting is increasing, but agencies could benefit from better data and contracting strategies (p. 71). Washington, D.C.: Governmental Accountability Office.
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Hausbeck, K. (2007). The Little Engine that could: The success of the Stewardship Contracting Authority. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 32, 33.
Hirt, P. W. (1994). A Conspiracy of optimism: Management of the national forests since World War Two. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Huber, J. D., & McCarty, N. (2004). Bureaucratic capacity, delegation, and political reform. American Political Science Review, 98(3), 481–494.
Johnston, J. M., & Girth, A. M. (2011). Government contracts and “managing the market”: Exploring the costs of strategic management responses to weak vendor competition. Administration and Society. doi:10.1177/0095399711417396.
Keele, D. M., Malmsheimer, R. W., Floyd, D. W., & Perez, J. E. (2006). Forest Service land management litigation 1989–2002. Journal of Forestry, 104(6), 196–202.
Keiser, L. R. (2010). Understanding street-level bureaucrats’ decision making: Determining eligibility in the social security disability program. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 247–257.
Keiser, L. R., & Soss, J. (1998). With good cause: Bureaucratic discretion and the politics of child support enforcement. American Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1133–1156.
Kerkvliet, J. (2010). The practice and economics of stewardship contracting: A case study of the Clearwater Stewardship Project. Forest Products Journal, 60(3), Article no. 10686.
Khademian, A. M. (2002). Working with culture: How the job gets done in public programs (Public affairs and policy administration series). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Harper Collins.
Klamath Tribes. (2013). The Klamath tribes: Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin. http://klamathtribes.org/.
Koontz, T., Steelman, T., Carmin, J., Korfmacher, K., Moseley, C., & Thomas, C. (2004). Collaborative environmental management: What roles for government?. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future Press.
Lindblom, C. E. (1968). The policy-making process. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517–526.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2010). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mattor, K. (2011). The state of stewardship contracting: Its use and implementation on US National Forests. In Paper presented at the international symposium on society and resource management, Madison, WI. July 7.
May, P. J., & Winter, S. C. (2007). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureaucrats: Influences of policy on implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,. doi:10.1093/jpart/mom030.
Mayhew, D. R. (2002). Electoral realignments: A critique of an American genre. New Haven: Yale University Press.
McCrudden, C. (2004). Using public procurement to achieve social outcomes. Natural Resources Forum, 28, 257–267.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration and Theory, 10(2), 359–379.
Minstrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 739–770.
Moseley, C. (1999). New ideas, old Institutions: Environment, community, and state in the Pacific Northwest. Doctoral Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven.
Moseley, C., & Davis, E. J. (2010). Stewardship contracting for landscape scale restoration. EWP Working Papers #25. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Moseley, C., & Kauffman, M. (2000). A review of the Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit, 1992–2000, Fremont National Forest. Lakeview, OR: Sustainable Northwest.
Orren, K., & Skowronek, S. (2004). The search for American political development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pinchot Institute for Conservation. (2012). Role of communities in stewardship contracting: FY 2011 Programmatic monitoring report to the USDA Forest Service (p. 131). Washington, D.C.: Pinchot Institute for Conservation.
Pinchot Institute for Conservation. (2013). The role of communities in stewardship contracting: FY 2012 programmatic monitoring report to the USDA Forest Service (p. 125). Washington, D.C.: Pinchot Institute for Conservation.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1984). Implementation: how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland : or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the Economic Development Administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes (The Oakland Project series). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sabatier, P. A., Loomis, J., & McCarthy, C. (1995). Hierarchial controls, professional norms, local constituencies, and budget maximization: An analysis of Forest Service planning decisions. American Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 204–242.
Schick, A. (2000). Federal budget process: Politics, policy, and process. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Shannon, M. A. (2003). The Northwest Forest Plan as a learning process: A call for new institutions bridging science and politics. In K. Arabas & J. Bowersox (Eds.), Forest futures: Science, politics and policy for the next century (pp. 256–279). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Sheingate, A. (2007). The terrain of the policy entrepreneur. In S. Skowronek & M. Glassman (Eds.), Formative acts: American politics in the making (pp. 13–31). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sheingate, A. (2010). Rethinking rules: Creativity and constraint in the US House of Representatives. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change (pp. 168–203). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skowronek, S. (1982). Building a new American state: The expansion of national administrative capacities, 1877–1920. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Skowronek, S., & Glassman, M. (2007). Formative acts. In S. Skowronek & M. Glassman (Eds.), Formative acts: American politics in the making (pp. 1–9). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Stankey, G. H., & Shindler, B. (1997). Adaptive management areas: Achieving the promise, avoiding the peril (p. 21). Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Steelman, T. (2010). Implementing innovation: Fostering enduring change in environmental and natural resource governance. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Sunquist, J. L. (1983). Dynamics of the party system: Alignment and realignment of political parties in the United States (Revised ed.). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Thomas, J. W. (2009). Increasing difficulty of active management on national forests—Problems and solutions. In T. A. Spies & S. L. Duncan (Eds.), Old growth in a new world (pp. 189–200). San Francisco, CA: Island Press.
Tomkin, S. L. (1998). Inside OMB: Politics and process in the President’s Budget Office. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe.
USDA Forest Service. (2007). Stategic plan FY 2007–2012 (p. 32). Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2014/FY2014ForestServiceBudgetJustificationFinal041613.pdf.
USDA Forest Service. (2013a). FY2014 budget justification. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service.
USDA Forest Service. (2013b). Stewardship end results contracting. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/Stewardship_Contracting/index.shtml [accessed 9/30/13].
USDA Forest Service, & USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1994). Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service.
Valelly, R. M. (2007). Partisan entrepreneurship and policy windows: George Frisbie Hoar and the 1890 Federal Elections Bill. In S. Skowronek & M. Glassman (Eds.), Formative acts: American politics in the making (pp. 126–152). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Vaughn, J. S., & Cortner, H. J. (2005). George W. Bush’s healthy forests: Reframing the environmental debate. Boulder, Colo.: University Press of Colorado.
Acknowledgments
This paper was made possible with National Fire Plan funding from the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, the Ford Foundation, and the University of Oregon. We appreciate the assistance of Melissa Poe, Kate MacFarland, Emily Jane Davis, Alaina Pomeroy, and all of the people who spoke with us about stewardship contracting. We particularly appreciate the early involvement of Ellen Donoghue in this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moseley, C., Charnley, S. Understanding micro-processes of institutionalization: stewardship contracting and national forest management. Policy Sci 47, 69–98 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9190-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9190-1